People who dont believe in evolution

[Egghead]

so what about the bones of Lucy? Link

"This stratification told the scientists that Lucy died somewhere between 3.2 and 3.8 million years ago. "

 

And of course there's the discovery of bones of hobbit-like creatures in Indonesia. link

"The tiny humans, who had skulls about the size of grapefruits, lived with pygmy elephants and Komodo dragons on a remote island in Indonesia 18,000 years ago."

[bmillerlte]

mr. cool, do you have a response to my two posts?

[colduser]

It's VERY hard for mr.cool to back up his postiton. Hence, he probably isn't posting in response.

[bmillerlte]

haha... i figured... theres no such thing as an intelligent republican! :D

[colduser]

Now, now :lol: There are some educated repubs. Don't be so harsh on mr.cool. He has a lot to learn yet. Just be happy in the fact that you know what is REALLY going on in politics :)

[bmillerlte]

how in the hell can you believe the earth is 10,000 years old... Did the aboriginees not exist? we have proof of their existance. Are cave painting all forgeries? What about the ancient civilizations between the tigris and euphrates and greece? i guess they didnt exist. And you need lots of proof to believe in things? What proof do you have of that? Whats with all this hypocrasy coming from you?

[colduser]

I know of many people who don't believe in evolution and believe that the earth is as old as the bible says. It's strange but true :stunned:

[bmillerlte]

how can you believe something that has been difinitively proven wrong?

[colduser]

Exactly. That is why it is fucking strange. :lol:

[Ireentje]

Creationists are just really obsessed people. They even have their own foundation. The head of the foundation is right now in Israël spending his time and money on the search for the Ark of Noah. He believes the Ark can be found on the mountain Ararat, as the Bible says.

Talking about nutcases :wink3:

[bonabon]

yes ppl who dont believe in evolution are ignorant. just because they have been taught for years and years about God and all that, they are too scared to admit that maybe the bible and all that isnt true...

 

and ppl who are not religious and dont believe in evolution are ignorant too. hee hee mr cool :P

[Ireentje]

Really ignorant :D I mean, the veidence is overwhelming and he keeps telling us that he wants it "proven".

[bonabon]

:D yes i know. he deserves a spanking!

[Ireentje]

with a wet towel :D That hurts :P

[Ambergris]

Evolution is a fact, there's overwhelming evidence about it you just need to observe it, it's around you. :D

 

For people who disagree with it (for any reason) or are naturally esceptical about it as mrcool, I'd recomend them to at least investigate so they finally can express their points with valid arguments.

 

I've seen many people who disagree just because they believe in creation as the bible exposes but they don't even care in looking for the freaking points of the theory and the evidences that strongly support it. That's just mediocre people.

[bmillerlte]

notice how mr. cool is no longer posting...

[Ireentje]

Typical :D

[Matter-Eater Lad]

ive still seen more evidence agaisnt it then for it, their are way too many gaps. But believe what you want.

[tifosi]

I dont believe in evolution because the lack of evidence' date=' its not because of christianity. I know lots of christians who believe in evolution though. I havent seen nearly enought evidence for it. BUT it havent seen much evidence agaisnt it.[/quote']

 

The evidence is in every cell in your body. It's a book made of 4 letters repeating in a 'random' pattern, and tracing our ancestry back through millennia to single celled organisms.

 

I always suggest reading books by RichardDawkins, SteveJones, and RichardSykes.

 

 

Science, we may not know all the answers... but we're working on it!

 

and remember there's no reality, only perception.

 

S

[roro]

wise words... :cool: ;)

[bmillerlte]

ive still seen more evidence agaisnt it then for it' date=' their are way too many gaps. But believe what you want.[/quote']

 

please... we've given you our evidence... give us evidence of your opinion

[Ambergris]

ive still seen more evidence agaisnt it then for it' date=' their are way too many gaps. But believe what you want.[/quote']

 

Can you please give some examples of the supposed evidence against it?

[Matter-Eater Lad]

I will tonight, when i have enought free time, but it wont be til like 2 am.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

2. MAGNETIC FIELD

The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth.

 

 

8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION

Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.

 

Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.

 

 

DATING METHODS

Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years.

 

Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years.

 

Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know:

 

1. how much of the parent material was in it at the start,

2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &

3. if there has been some type of contamination since.

In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.

 

 

 

 

12. DINOSAURS

Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons.

 

Many times in the recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Paluxy River in Texas.

 

Also not to be tossed aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world.

 

Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed one, but their camera was damaged.

 

However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another problem for the evolutionists.

 

 

 

SUN'S DIAMETER

The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.

 

 

EARTH'S ROTATION

The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.

 

 

MORE STUFF-

 

 

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

 

 

 

 

*Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

 

 

Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."

-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

 

 

Evidence of Irreducible Complexity

 

Evolutionists talk fondly of the "one-celled organism" that started it all, but what they don't mention is the fact that it is impossible for such an organism to appear by natural causes. There are complex functions and parts needed to work in harmony with one another in even the simplest of living things. Unless all these parts were arranged and "turned on" at one time, life would never begin. Hence, it is necessary that some "Intelligent Designer" fit those parts together. By way of example, consider the human eye. The eye has thousands of nerve endings, millions of cells, all working in harmony with one another to send information to the brain, which is then interpreted in the mind as images. It would be impossible for an eye to develop piece-by-piece, for each individual element of the eye would be worthless without all the rest already in place. Thus, they eye must have been formed instantaneously by some "organizer", not randomly thrown together by the chance forces of nature.

 

 

 

Evidence of the Fossil Record

 

Contrary to what most people are led to believe, the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. In fact, fossil record may be the single greatest threat to Darwinism...for, simply put, the evidence for evolution isn't there. It wasn't there in Darwin's day, and it has yet to be found. The occasional skeleton digs the turn up a monkey or diseased gorilla are heralded as "proof" for evolution, but no one mentions the fact that if evolution were true, there would be millions upon billions of such "transitional creatures" permeating the fossil record. As it stands today, such finds are very rare and most are very questionable as to their authenticity and viability as true transitional forms.

 

 

Evidence of DNA

 

Information is coded into every living thing--highly complex arrangements of data that make each being what it is. No such information has ever been observed to be generated on its own...meaningful information cannot be arranged randomly (just as a book cannot be written without an author). The evidence for intelligence is clear...encoded right into our own bodies. In order to prove evolution as fact, it would have to be demonstrated that such information could and did arise by chance accidents.

 

 

There are many more scientific challenges to the theory of evolution...many more. Yet it is evidence and logic such as this that is being censored out of public school curriculum in favor of a one-faith policy: the faith of evolution.

 

 

Intelligent Design is not about getting a religion in schools, it is about revealing the truth about the Darwinist religion….that it isn't nearly as "scientific" as the public has been led to believe

 

 

1. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION

 

The following are just some of the little publicised facts which contradict the "proven fact" of evolution theory.

 

 

 

 

1. FOSSILS

 

(A) The oldest rocks (Pre-Cambrian) have been searched for many years but no undisputed fossils have been found. The Cambrian rocks immediately above, however, contain numerous fully developed complex invertebrates. This sudden appearance of life in the strata has been a major problem for the evolutionists (Fig.1). geol column

 

Minute objects found in Precambrian strata are claimed to be primordial cells. Even if they are there is an enormous gap between such microscopic objects and the complex invertebrates such as the trilobites which suddenly appear perfectly formed in the Cambrian strata above.

 

(B) Despite searching the strata for over 100 years, fossils which would close the gaps between classes and even species have NOT been found, as many evolutionists are now prepared to admit. In proposing their new theory of "punctuated equilibrium", Drs. Gould and Eldredge accept that these gaps still exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. THE HORSE 'SERIES'

 

When challenged to produce a series of fossils demonstrating the transition of one species into another, the 4-3-1 toe evolution of the horse is frequently presented as evidence. However,

 

(A) Over twenty different geneological 'trees' have been drawn up by various scientists. This is because there are 250 similar looking animals to chose from. Those which contradict the series are ignored.

 

(B) All the known species of birds and mammals appear and 'diversify' within the last 150 Million years according to the evolutionists geological time scale. At this rate, the 70 million years it has taken simply to modify a horse's hoof is far too large a proportion of the time since mammals first appeared. There is therefore something seriously wrong with the time scale.

 

© Some animals used in the sequence have differing numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae, indicating that various species have been used to compile the series, but this is ignored as this contradicts the theory. Most of these fossil animals have been found in America. Yet the first fossils of modern horses they are supposed to lead up to are found in Europe. (Present American horses are a recent introduction). Two evolutionists - Prof. George Gaylord Simpson said "It never happened in nature" and Charles Deperet called it "a deceitful illusion"

 

3. ARCHAEOPTERYX

 

This bird is claimed to be the link between reptiles and birds. But it had perfectly formed feathers which are very complex in design. There can be over a million minute hooks on one feather. Nothing which is half way between a feather and a reptile's scale has ever been found. An animal with half developed wings could neither run nor fly properly and would be quickly eliminated. Finally, Archaeopteryx is irrelevant, as a fossil of a normal bird has been found in strata of same dating as Archeopteryx.

 

4. BIRDS

 

(A) Evolutionists cannot determine how birds evolved by studying existing species. Special types of skulls, feathers, hollow bones, etc., appear 'randomly' in existing species making classification impossible.

 

(B) Nesting habits of some birds cannot be learnt, e.g. the mud nest of the House Martin has to be right first time or the eggs will fall.

 

5. GENETIC EXPERIMENTS

 

After breeding over one million fruit flies, they still obstinately remain fruit flies! There is a wide variety of dog BREEDS but they are still dogs. Species bred beyond limits develop serious deformities. Darwin bred pigeons and knew this fact but in his "Origins of Species" he glossed over what is an impassable barrier to the "evolution" of one species from another.

 

6. RECAPITULATION THEORY

 

This is the theory that the development of a fertilised germ cell retraces the history of the species.(e.g. that gill 'slits' in the human embryo are relics of its fish ancestry). This theory, once hailed as the Biogenic LAW is now discredited even by evolutionists. However it is still implied in some books. Prof. Haeckel (a fiery supporter of Darwin) faked his drawings to support the theory but was convicted by a University court.

 

7. ORIGIN OF LIFE

 

(A) Passing a spark through a mixture of gasses forms simple amino acids but -

 

(B) they are only the very simplest of 'building blocks' used in the formation of larger organic molecules.

 

© they must be caught in a cold trap to prevent the spark from destroying them

 

(D) a reducing (non oxygen) atmosphere is necessary.

 

(E) any amino acids forming would have been destroyed by the ultra-violet rays of the Sun. These conditions would not have occurred in nature.

 

(F) Even allowing millions of years, there has still been insufficient time or material in the whole universe for very complex organic molecules to have formed BY CHANCE.

 

8. PEPPERED MOTH

 

There are two varieties - the light and the dark. Elimination of the light variety is NOT evolution. They are still Peppered Moths. Kettlewell's experiments were specifically designed to get the results he wanted and were seriously flawed. Results contradicting his evolutionary views were ignored.

 

9. WHALES

 

Evolutionists are unable to explain how the whale, which is a mammal, went back into the sea without leaving any fossil evidence of intermediate forms.

 

10. DUCK BILLED PLATYPUS

 

This strange animal has:

 

(A) a soft, sensitive "bill" and lays eggs like a duck

 

(B) fur like an animal,

 

© webbed and clawed feet,

 

(D) pockets in its jaws to carry food,

 

(E) a spur on rear legs which is poisonous like a snake's fang.

 

A question for the evolutionist- what were its ancestors?

 

11. RADIOMETRIC DATING

 

This method is used to give an age to rocks (and thereby the fossils they bear) but it rests upon several unprovable assumptions, e.g.

 

(A) Radioactive conditions are the same today as they were millions of years ago.

 

(B) The 'half life' of the elements is constant.

 

© No products of the radioactive decay were originally present nor have been added since the formation of the rock.

 

These are all very large suppositions that cannot be easily checked in the field for every sample.

 

When the same stratum is tested by different methods or even by the same method, it frequently gives an enormous range of ages. For example, one rock gave 14, 30, 95 and 750 million years by different methods. In another case, dating of the same rock for Leakey's 1470 'Man' gave 220 million years and 2.6 million years using the Potassium-Argon method. It is sometimes said that, despite discrepancies, radiometric dating shows that rocks are millions of years old, not thousands. One answer is that the 'daughter' elements found in some rocks are naturally occurring along with many other elements. To infer vast ages from the ratios of the elements found in rocks is unwarranted. The only reason why the results of Radiometric Dating tests are quoted is that they give ages in terms of millions of years. Other methods giving only thousands are completely ignored.

 

All these long ages are greatly reduced due to the speed of light being VERY much higher in the past. - SEE THE SECTION ON THE DECREASE OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT ON PAGE 3 - EVIDENCE FOR GENESIS]

 

12. CARBON 14

 

Graph of rising c14 level This is a radioactive form of Carbon and all living organisms have a small amount of C14 within them. However, the level is not constant as the ground level activity is still rising. i.e. the amount of C14 is not yet in equilibrium. This makes the true age shorter than apparent age (Fig. 2). This method is quite unreliable for ages over 3,000 years despite datings up to 40,000 years being quoted.

[Egghead]

im really disappointed.